Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 1 of 91
`Case 1:14-cv-02396—PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 1 of 91
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 2 of 91
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In re Post-Grant Review of:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`Issued: December 2, 2014
`
`
`Inventor: Ingemar J. Cox
`
`
`Application No. 13/800,573
`
`
`Filed: March 13, 2013
`
`
`For: METHOD FOR TAGGING AN
`
`ELECTRONIC MEDIA WORK
`
`TO PERFORM AN ACTION
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`) PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 321 AND § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`(“AIA”) and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., Google Inc. hereby requests
`
`covered business method review of claims 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464 (“the
`
`’464 patent,” attached as Exhibit 1001), now purportedly assigned to Network-1
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”).
`
`An electronic payment in the amount of $43,950.00 for the post-grant review
`
`fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15—comprising the $12,000 request fee, the respective
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 3 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`excess claim fee of $3,500, the $18,000 post-institution fee, and the respective excess
`
`claim fee of $10,450—is being paid at the time of filing this petition. If there are any
`
`additional fees due in connection with the filing of this paper, please charge the
`
`required fees to Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 4 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`Table of Contents
`Preliminary Statement ................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. The ’464 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent .............................. 2
`The ’464 Patent Claims Relate to a Financial Product or Service ............ 3
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Claims Are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention” ............... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Claims Do Not Recite a Novel and Unobvious
`Technical Feature ......................................................................... 5
`
`The Claims Do Not Solve a Technical Problem With a
`Technical Solution ......................................................................13
`
`III. Claim Construction ......................................................................................15
`“near neighbor”/“neighbor” ................................................................16
`A.
`
`IV. Claims 1-34 of the ’464 Patent Are Unpatentable ......................................17
`Claims 1-34 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..........................17
`A.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The ’464 Patent Claims the Abstract Idea of Linking Media
`with a Business Action ...............................................................18
`
`Claims 1, 7-9, 18, and 24-26 Add Only Conventional
`Computer Technology to the Abstract Idea ...............................20
`
`Dependent Claims 2-6, 10-17, 19-23, and 27-34 Add Only
`Descriptions of Types of Data ...................................................23
`
`The ’464 Patent Does Not Satisfy the Machine-or-
`Transformation Test ..................................................................25
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-34 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103............................26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ferris is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................26
`
`Lambert is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................26
`
`Gionis is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...............................27
`
`Philyaw is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .............................27
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 5 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`Goldstein is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...........................27
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Ferris in Combination with Lambert and Gionis Renders
`Claims 1-11, 13-15, 18-28, and 30-32 Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ...............................................................................27
`
`Ferris in combination with Lambert, Gionis, and Philyaw
`Renders Claims 16 and 33 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........58
`
`Ferris in Combination with Lambert, Gionis, and Goldstein
`Renders Claims 12, 17, 29, and 34 Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ...............................................................................60
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-34 are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 112............................63
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-34 are Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 ................63
`
`Claims 1-34 Lack Written Description Support Under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 .........................................................................69
`
`V. Mandatory Notices and Standing ...............................................................76
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................76
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Related Matters .....................................................................................77
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ..........................77
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable ..................................78
`
`E. Google Has Been Sued for Infringement of the ’464 Patent and Is
`Not Estopped .......................................................................................78
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested For Each Claim
`VI.
`Challenged ....................................................................................................78
`Claims for which Review Is Requested .................................................78
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ...........................................................78
`
`VII. Conclusion ....................................................................................................79
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 6 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ........................................................................................ 17, 22, 23
`
`Page(s)
`
`American Express Co. v. Metasearch Systems, LLC,
`CBM2014-00001, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014) .................................................. 9
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Sightsound Technologies, LLC,
`CBM2013-00019, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2013) .................................................... 8
`
`Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ....................................................................... 69
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ............................................................................................ 18, 24, 25
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 19, 26
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 22, 23
`
`DealerSocket, Inc. v. Autoalert, LLC,
`CBM2014-00201, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015) ............................................ 9, 64
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 19, 24, 25
`
`Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................... 26
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .................................................................................................... 21, 26
`
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC,
`CBM2013-00033, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013) ............................................... 8, 9
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 7 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calpyso, LLC,
`CBM2013-00034, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013) ................................................. 3, 4
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00052, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2014) ........................................ 3, 4, 8, 9
`
`In re American Academy of Science Tech Center,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................... 15
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00002, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013) ..................................................... 8
`
`LinkedIn Corp. v. AvMarkets Inc.,
`CBM2013-00025, Paper 13 (Nov. 12, 2013) .......................................................... 2, 3, 9
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................... 70
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .............................................................................................. 18, 24
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................................ 63, 64, 69
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .................................................................................................. 18, 23
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ....................................................................... 15
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................... 70
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) ....................................................... 2
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper 70 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013) ........................................... 18, 22
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................... 70
`
`TurboCare Division of Demag Delaval TurboMachinery Corp. v. General Electric Corp.,
`264 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................... 70
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 8 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ 19
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`AIA § 18(d)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 2, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101.................................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102................................................................................................................ 26, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.................................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.................................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321...................................................................................................................... 78
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324...................................................................................................................... 79
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 .............................................................................................................. 2, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ................................................................................................................. 78
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................................. 78
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered
`Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... 2, 3, 4
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 9 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petition Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`Petition Exhibit 1002:
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`Petition Exhibit 1003:
`
`Declaration of Pierre Moulin
`
`Petition Exhibit 1004:
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart in Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
`
`v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2396 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6,
`
`2015)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1005:
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement in Network-1 Technologies,
`
`Inc. v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09558 (S.D.N.Y.,
`
`Dec. 3, 2014)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1006:
`
`International Application Publication Number WO
`
`99/04568 to Ferris et al.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1007:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,381,522 to Lambert et al.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1008:
`
`Aristides Gionis et al, Similarity Search in High Dimensions via
`
`Hashing, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference
`
`on Very Large Data Bases, pages 518-29
`
`Petition Exhibit 1009:
`
`International Application Publication Number WO
`
`00/16205 to Philyaw et al.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1010:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,410,326 to Goldstein
`
`Petition Exhibit 1011:
`
`CLASS 705 DATA PROCESSING: FINANCIAL,
`
`BUSINESS PRACTICE, MANAGEMENT, OR
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 10 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`COST/PRICE DETERMINATION, U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, January 2012
`
`Petition Exhibit 1012:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,479,246 to Hudson et al.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1013:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,670 to Levi et al.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1014: W.J.E. Crissy and Gary A. Marple, What about Reader Service
`
`Cards?, 27 Journal of Marketing, no. 1, at 56-60
`
`Petition Exhibit 1015:
`
`Thomas Publishing, Industrial Equipment News, June 29,
`
`1998, available at
`
`<http://web.archive.org/web/19980629025648/http://w
`
`ww.thomaspublishing.com/annivienist.html>
`
`Petition Exhibit 1016:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,565,294 to Rhoads
`
`Petition Exhibit 1017:
`
`Reserved
`
`Petition Exhibit 1018:
`
`Reserved
`
`Petition Exhibit 1019:
`
`PLAINTIFF NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S
`
`RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS GOOGLE, INC.
`
`AND YOUTUBE, LLC’S FIRST SET OF
`
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-4), in Network-1
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2396
`
`(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2015)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1020:
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,656,441 Under 35
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 11 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`U.S.C. § 313 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Case No.
`
`IPR2015-00348 (Mar. 27, 2015)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1021:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,010,988 to Cox
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 12 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`I.
`
`Preliminary Statement
`The ’464 patent relates to “media works,” which are, for example,
`
`advertisements or articles published in print, on TV, or on the radio. The patent
`
`explains that the invention “concerns identifying a work (e.g., content or an advertisement
`
`delivered via print media, or via a radio or television broadcast) without the need to
`
`modify the work.” Ex. 1001, 1:43-46 (emphasis added). The identification of the
`
`media work is based on “links” that “can then be used to invoke a work-related
`
`action.” Id. at 4:20-21. While the ’464 patent specification provides several examples
`
`of how to link a media work to an action, Ex. 1001, 4:30-41, its claims simply recite
`
`this abstract idea: linking a media work to a business action, for example, through an
`
`advertisement. Ex. 1001, 1:40-46, 60-65.
`
`Linking ads to related actions is a longstanding business practice which
`
`predates the earliest alleged date of invention, July 1, 2000. See Ex. 1019 at 30. For
`
`example, magazine publishers have linked media works to business actions since at
`
`least 1934, by attaching “tags” to advertisements in the form of numbers. Magazine
`
`readers interested in advertised products or services could request more information
`
`by circling the corresponding numbers on a postcard in the magazine and mailing the
`
`postcard to the magazine publisher. The publisher would provide the reader’s contact
`
`information to the advertiser, who could send further information to the reader.
`
`To the extent the claims of the ’464 patent recite anything beyond the
`
`longstanding practice of linking a media work like an advertisement to a business
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 13 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`action, they recite nothing more than conventional computer technology or data. As
`
`such, all of the claims of the ’464 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`That there is nothing patentable about the claims is confirmed by multiple prior
`
`art references that teach or suggest all of the features of the claims of the ’464 patent,
`
`rendering them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The claims are also indefinite and
`
`lack support in the ’464 patent’s specification, failings that independently render every
`
`claim of the ’464 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`II. The ’464 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent
`A CBM patent is any patent with claims directed to “performing data
`
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of
`
`a financial product or service . . . .” AIA § 18(d)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The
`
`Office has stated that “financial product or service” should be “interpreted broadly,”
`
`encompassing patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a
`
`financial activity or complementary to a financial activity.” Transitional Program for
`
`Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent
`
`and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`This Board has explained that the term “financial” is an “adjective that simply means
`
`relating to monetary matters.” SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., CBM2012-
`
`00001, Paper 36 at 23 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013). But the term “financial” is not limited to
`
`products or services in the financial services industry. LinkedIn Corp. v. AvMarkets Inc.,
`
`CBM2013-00025, Paper 13 at 9 (Nov. 12, 2013) (citing 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,736).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 14 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`In fact, this Board has explained that even a single claim related to an aspect of
`
`commerce—like advertisements, see Hulu, LLC v. Intertainer, Inc., CBM2014-00052,
`
`Paper 10 at 10 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2014), marketing, LinkedIn Corp., CBM2013-00025,
`
`Paper 13 at 10-11, or financial subsidies, Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-
`
`00034, Paper 9 at 13-14 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)—is enough to constitute a “financial
`
`product or service.” Under the statute and this guidance, the ’464 patent qualifies as a
`
`CBM patent.
`
`A. The ’464 Patent Claims Relate to a Financial Product or Service
`The ’464 patent covers advertising and marketing methods. The claims are
`
`drawn to methods for receiving a media work such as an advertisement, providing the
`
`media work and other information to a user, and receiving a request related to the
`
`other information. For example, independent claim 1 involves sending instructions to
`
`a user device to perform an action based on information that claim 10 explains is
`
`“related to an advertisement.” Providing advertisements is a fundamental business
`
`practice. See, e.g., Linkedin, CBM2013-00025, Paper 13 at 9-11 (finding a claim for
`
`“increasing sales leads by making items available on Web pages” directed to a financial
`
`product or service). At least claims 1 and 10 are therefore Covered Business Methods;
`
`thus, review should be instituted. To institute a CBM post-grant review, a patent need
`
`only have one claim directed to a CBM, and not a technological invention.
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 15 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at
`
`48,736.
`
`That the ’464 patent is a CBM patent is confirmed by the fact that “patents
`
`subject to covered business method patent review are anticipated to be typically
`
`classifiable in Class 705,” and may include patents classified in other classes. 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 48,739 (emphasis added). While classified in class 725, the ’464 patent was also
`
`classifiable in class 705. As noted above, the ’464 patent relates in part to providing
`
`advertisements to users. Some claims – like claims 12 and 29, see Ex. 1001 at 25:35-37,
`
`26:47-49, relate to coupons. There are therefore numerous subclasses in class 705
`
`where the ’464 patent would also be classifiable, such as 14.1 (“Discount or incentive
`
`(e.g., coupon, rebate, offer, upsale, etc.)”), 14.23 (“During E-commerce (i.e., online
`
`transaction)”), 14.49 (“Targeted advertisement”), and 14.73 (“Online advertisement”).
`
`See Ex. 1011. The ’464 patent’s classification in class 725, subclasses 110 and 114-116,
`
`thus does not bar institution of a CBM proceeding. Moreover, CBM reviews have
`
`been instituted on patents classified in class 725. See, e.g., Hulu, CBM2014-00052,
`
`Paper 10 at 19, concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,479,246 (Ex. 1012) having a primary
`
`classification of class 725, subclass 113; Groupon, CBM2013-00034, Paper 9 at 30,
`
`concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,457,670 (Ex. 1013) having a secondary classification in
`
`class 725.
`
`Accordingly, the ’464 patent is a Covered Business Method Patent and trial
`
`should be instituted.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 16 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`B. The Claims Are Not Directed to a “Technological Invention”
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition
`
`of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(1). Determining whether a patent is for a technological
`
`invention requires consideration, on a case-by-case basis, of “whether the claimed
`
`subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious
`
`over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301. Because the claims of the ’464 patent fail to define a novel and unobvious
`
`technological feature and fail to recite a technical solution to a technical problem, the
`
`claims are not drawn to a technological invention.
`
`1.
`
`The Claims Do Not Recite a Novel and Unobvious
`Technical Feature
`As a preliminary matter, claims 1-34 of the ’464 patent do not recite any novel
`
`and unobvious features because they are obvious over prior art. Infra Section IV.B. The
`
`claims, moreover, fail to recite any novel and unobvious technological features.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites, in part:
`
`receiving, by a computer system including at least one
`computer, a first electronic media work;
`
`correlating, by the computer system using a non-
`exhaustive, near neighbor search, the first electronic media
`work with an electronic media work identifier;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 17 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`storing, by the computer system, correlation information
`associating the first electronic media work and the
`electronic media work identifier;
`
`accessing, by the computer system, associated information
`related to an action to be performed in association with one
`or more electronic media works corresponding to the
`electronic media work identifier;
`
`generating, by the computer system, a tag associated with
`the first electronic media work;
`
`providing, from the computer system to a user electronic
`device, the first electronic media work and the associated
`tag;
`
`obtaining, by the computer system from the user electronic
`device, a request related to the associated tag;
`
`generating, using the computer system, machine-readable
`instructions based upon the associated information to be
`used in performing, at the user electronic device, the action;
`and
`
`providing, from the computer system to the user electronic
`device, the machine-readable instructions to perform the
`action in response to the request.
`
`Independent claim 18 recites, in part:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 18 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`receiving, by a computer system including at least one
`computer, associated information related to an action to be
`performed in association with a first electronic media work
`identifier;
`
`receiving, by the computer system, a first electronic media
`work;
`
`correlating, by the computer system using a non-
`exhaustive, near neighbor search, the first electronic media
`work with the first electronic media work identifier;
`
`storing, by the computer system, correlation information
`associating the first electronic media work and the first
`electronic media work identifier;
`
`generating, by the computer system, a tag associated with
`the first electronic media work;
`
`providing, from the computer system to a first user
`electronic device, the first electronic media work and the
`tag;
`
`receiving, at the computer system, a request generated at
`the first user electronic device and related to the tag;
`
`generating, using the computer system, machine-readable
`instructions based upon the associated information to be
`used in performing, at a user electronic device, the action;
`and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 19 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`providing, from the computer system to the first user
`electronic device, the machine-readable instructions to
`perform the action in response to the request.
`
`The only technology arguably claimed, therefore, is a “computer system” and a
`
`“user electronic device,” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 20, 22, and 23, which the Board has
`
`confirmed is insufficient to render a patent “technological.” See, e.g., Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012); Groupon, Inc. v. Blue
`
`Calypso, LLC, CBM2013-00033, Paper 10 at 22 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013). “Mere
`
`recitation of known technologies, such as computer hardware, communication or
`
`computer networks, software, memory, computer-readable storage medium, scanners,
`
`display devices or databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM or point of sale
`
`device,” or “[r]eciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a process
`
`or method, even if that process or method is novel and non-obvious” will “not
`
`typically render a patent a technological invention.” See, e.g., Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,764; see also Hulu, CBM2014-00052, Paper 10 at 11-
`
`12, Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs., LLC, CBM2013-00019, Paper 17 at 14-16 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Oct. 8, 2013); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 10
`
`at 7-8 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013).
`
`Moreover, each step in independent claims 1 and 18, for example, relates to
`
`receiving an electronic media work, linking the media work to some unspecified
`
`action, and sending instructions to perform the action. Merely receiving and sending
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 20 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`data, without more, is a known process that has been practiced on computers for ages.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 23; see also Groupon, CBM2013-00033, Paper 10 at 20-22; Dealersocket, Inc.
`
`v. Autoalert, LLC, CBM2014-00201, Paper 11 at 17 (Feb, 17, 2015).
`
`Some dependent claims, such as claims 2-6 and 19-23, only limit the claims to
`
`types of “information” associated with the media work, such as the name of a
`
`product or a product category. Ex. 1001 at 25:4-17 and 26:14-27; see also Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 22. Dependent claims 7 and 24 specify that the electronic media is drawn to a
`
`generic audio, video, or image. Ex. 1001 at 25:18-19 and 26:28-30. Dependent claims
`
`8, 9, 25, and 26 describe the generic user electronic device as being separate from
`
`other electronic devices. Ex. 1001 at 25:20-28 and 26:31-40; see also Ex. 1003 at ¶ 22.
`
`Other dependent claims, such as 10-17 and 27-34, explain that the information
`
`associated with an action can be advertisements or other related data. Ex. 1001 at
`
`25:29-50 and 26:41-62; see also Ex. 1003 at ¶ 22. These limitations are not enough to
`
`make the claims “technological” in nature. See, e.g., LinkedIn Corp., CBM2013-00025,
`
`Paper 13 at 11-12; Hulu, CBM2014-00052, Paper 10 at 10-12.
`
`Even the most technical sounding claim element – “correlating … using a
`
`non-exhaustive, near neighbor search” – is not a technological feature. Indeed, the Board
`
`has ruled that known searching methods are not technical features. See, e.g., American
`
`Express Company, et al. v. Metasearch Systems, LLC, CBM2014-00001, Paper 29 at 7-8
`
`(Mar. 20, 2014). The type of search that Patent Owner claims is recited in the ’464
`
`patent is nothing more than what a human does in looking up a word in the
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-MHD Document 158-3 Filed 07/19/19 Page 21 of 91
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464
`
`
`dictionary. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 28. The Patent Owner has argued that “non-exhaustive
`
`search” is defined as “search using an algorithm designed to locate a match without
`
`requiring the query to be compared to every record in the reference data set being
`
`searched until a match is identified,” and that “near neighbor” is defined as “close, but
`
`not necessarily exact or the closest, match of a feature vector, compact electronic
`
`representation, or set of extracted features to another, that has a distance or difference
`
`that falls within a defined threshold of a query.” See Ex. 1004 at 3. Even if the Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed definitions are correct, this search method is not a technical
`
`feature. For example, if a reader wanted to look up “chese,” a misspelling of the word
`
`“cheese,” the reader would perform a “non-exhaustive” search by looking only in the
`
`“C” section – not by comparing the word “chese” to every word in the dictionary. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 28. Moreover, the user would perform a “near neighbor” search to locate the
`
`closest word to “chese,” ending up at “cheese” because the two words are a close but
`
`not exact match that has a difference of only one letter. Ex. 100